When one irrelevance defends another....

[Lateralthinking1]

Almost Sorry?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWom_qLF2yw

[amateur51]

The trouble is, Bryn, that as S dives quickly in and out of different threads flicking us with his unsubstantiated witty little barbs he mixes his meanings, matter and metaphors. All too often it ends up sounding like he's trying to say things like "The quick brown troll hides under the rickety bridge".

[amateur51]

....and The Archbishop of Cantebury is the Queens Keyworker....

[Simon]

Well , you are quick if nothing else S....

Thanks, 8th - but I confess not a quick as it appeared.

I posted, then edited to include you when I saw yours.

[Ferretfancy]

Has anybody managed to watch Andrew Marr's series The Diamond Queen so far without a feeling of nausea?

To see a generally perceptive journalist like Marr spouting such obsequious drivel simply shows that when royalty come into view, brains turn to mush. It's time we got off our knees and grew up.

Where one denizen of Buckingham Palace is concerned, I'm reminded of Hilaire Belloc's Lord Heygate --

Lord Heygate had a troubled face
His furniture was commonplace
The sort of Peer who well might pass
For someone of the middle class
I do not think you wish to hear
About this unimportant Peer.

As for the rest--

For the hoary social curse
Gets hoarier and hoarier
And it stinks a trifle worse
Than in
The days of Queen Victoria
When
They married and gave in marriage
they danced at the County Ball
And some of them kept a carriage

AND THE FLOOD DESTROYED THEM ALL

[Simon]

But being "almost sorry" is being not sorry at all. Do wake up a the back there. it may be half-term but that's no excuse for slacking.

Typical. Very technical! But being "almost sorry" implies a sort of teetering on the brink of being sorry. Being not sorry at all implies being far from it. See? So they can be used in the way I did to mean what I meant. Or do you think they can't? We could ask ff!

[Simon]

And now Ferret! How could I have forgotten him?

FULL HOUSE!

[John Skelton]

"Its role is not to defend Anglicanism to the exclusion of other religions. Instead, the Church has a duty to protect the free practice of all faiths in this country."

That seems a curious statement. Is that how Anglicans see their Church (and where does the idea come from?)

[Chris Newman]

"Its role is not to defend Anglicanism to the exclusion of other religions. Instead, the Church has a duty to protect the free practice of all faiths in this country."

That seems a curious statement. Is that how Anglicans see their Church (and where does the idea come from?)

I claim no religion as my own but do take an interest, John. I do not see Hm's statement there as curious. I see it as idealistic, rather emulating the probable gentler intentions of Jesus before the theologians muscled in on his thoughts. Also it is apt at this moment when the secular versus Christianity debate is topical and people on both sides (who should know better) are using the issue to say that Islam is evil.

[Lateralthinking1]

The recent uprising of secularists - ie the issue of prayers in a Devon council chamber being taken up by a national society - is one of the biggest expressions of giving up on democratic opposition I have ever seen.

Rather like those who chucked bricks into the little sports shop run by Mr Khan, they have accepted that the Government won't be bulls eyed so it is anywhere else on the board.

They are effectively walking us into an American style religion-based politics. Previously even right wing Conservatives would have seen that as a vote loser.

Step up then Baroness Warsi supported fully by David Cameron. If the new conservatism becomes a passing phase towards Tea Party policies, it will have been facilitated by those who want those least.

[John Skelton]

I claim no religion as my own but do take an interest, John. I do not see Hm's statement there as curious. I see it as idealistic, rather emulating the probable gentler intentions of Jesus before the theologians muscled in on his thoughts. Also it is apt at this moment when the secular versus Christianity debate is topical and people on both sides (who should know better) are using the issue to say that Islam is evil.

I agree that it's idealistic, Chris - it would seem paradoxical to me for a Church to define itself in such a way that the definition elides its particularity. As quoted it sounds as if she's speaking for the Church, and I wonder ....

Completely agree about the viciousness of fashionable Islamophobia.

[John Wright]

work very hard ? what really? what real hard work?
What they do isn't really hard work , is it?

Yes of course it is hard work. The Queen, Phillip, the princes all have a very full itinerary all laid out of them - they really have little choce/chance to refuse. The stress and strains of such travelling are huge.

I'd say the Royal Family work a lot harder than many civil servants I know and 'committee members' in private industry who drive around in Jaguars attending meetings every day, they don't often make any decisions themselves but rely on the middle managers to work it all out. And of course a lot of these 'committee members' don't even travel to meetings now, but rely on video conferencing from the comfort of their large detached mansions.

[scottycelt]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...the-Queen.html
When one irrelevance defends another, do they both become more, or less irrelevant?

No, any irrelevance is surely attached to those who consistently fail to understand and appreciate what is very relevant to many millions of others ... ?

[teamsaint]

Yes of course it is hard work. The Queen, Phillip, the princes all have a very full itinerary all laid out of them - they really have little choce/chance to refuse. The stress and strains of such travelling are huge.

I'd say the Royal Family work a lot harder than many civil servants I know and 'committee members' in private industry who drive around in Jaguars attending meetings every day, they don't often make any decisions themselves but rely on the middle managers to work it all out. And of course a lot of these 'committee members' don't even travel to meetings now, but rely on video conferencing from the comfort of their large detached mansions.

if its so tough, they could resign.

And give up the pay and perks.

They won't.
They tell us they work hard. well they would, wouldn't they.

[MrGongGong]

aaah never before have the words of Lydon seemed so appropriate